Chapter Four
EFFECTS OF GENDER INTEGRATION ON COHESION
This chapter examines the effects of gender integration on unit cohesion. First, a definition of and framework for cohesion developed
by previous research is offered. Second, responses to questionnaire
items on cohesion are presented. Third, survey and focus-group
data regarding the effects of gender integration on cohesion are discussed. The people we surveyed differed in the level of cohesion they
experienced within their units. These differences are acknowledged
herein and serve as an organizing framework for reporting our data.
Our findings are evaluated according to the standards set by decades
of research on the topic of cohesion and work performance. Our results support the framework developed by previous scholars. In this
chapter, unit refers to both the smaller work group and the larger
unit level.
DEFINING COHESION
Before delving into the research findings to examine the differences
in perception, especially according to grade, a discussion of cohesion
in general is in order. A common misperception is that cohesion is
equivalent to social bonding and that more is always desirable.
Decades of social science research into social cohesion, work performance, and military effectiveness, however, demonstrate the importance of distinguishing between two types of cohesion:
Social cohesion refers to the nature and quality of the emotional
bonds of friendship, liking, caring, and closeness among group
members. A group is socially cohesive to the extent that its members like each other, prefer to spend their social time together, enjoy
53
54
New Opportunities for Women
each other’s company, and feel emotionally close to one another.
(MacCoun, 1993, p. 291.)
Task cohesion refers to the shared commitment among members to
achieving a goal that requires the collective efforts of the group. A
group with high task cohesion is composed of members who share
a common goal and who are motivated to coordinate their efforts as
a team to achieve their goal. (MacCoun, 1993, p. 291.)
This body of work has also delineated the relationship among social
cohesion, task cohesion, and group outcomes:
Task cohesion has a modest but reliable influence on performance;
social cohesion does not have an independent effect after controlling for task cohesion. Under some conditions, high social cohesion
is actually detrimental to unit performance; moderate social cohesion appears most beneficial. Research indicates that it is not necessary to like someone to work with them, so long as members
share a commitment to the group’s objective. (MacCoun, 1993, p.
330.)
Multiple research efforts have shown that high social cohesion, or
bonding on a social level, can have deleterious effects on performance outcomes and task cohesion, because people start to prioritize friendship and social activities over performing their jobs and let
their work suffer. Military regulations have long considered the potential negative effects of the wrong kind of bonding between leaders
and subordinates and thus enforce institutional fraternization policies that forbid inappropriately close relationships (regardless of
gender) between officers and enlisted personnel.
RESEARCH FINDINGS ON UNIT COHESION
Our overall research findings are that gender differences alone did
not appear to erode cohesion. Cohesion was reported high in units
where people believed the command emphasized unity and the importance and necessity of all members and divisions in accomplishing the mission. Within smaller units and departments with strong
cohesion, people felt their coworkers were professional, quality
people they could trust to help them out when necessary. A proven
track record of long, arduous work schedules that met with success
Effects of Gender Integration on Cohesion
55
strengthened their bond. These factors overrode social differences in
the units, such as gender, grade, and race. In units rated as loosely
cohesive, workers tended to note that people preferred to socialize
either on their own or in subgroups but that this was not a problem
because, when it came to getting their jobs done and done well, they
were able to work together as professionals to do so. In units that
were characterized as divided into conflicting groups, gender was
one of an entire range of factors that pulled people apart. Members
of these units tended to feel either that the divisiveness was caused
by lack of attention to the issue by the command or that the command was the source of the problem. Not only was the leadership
charged with creating and fostering divisions by work group, but
rank was most often cited as a source of segregation or conflict.
Other divisions among people were attributed to people forming
cliques according to personal interests, values, race or ethnic group,
or gender. Divisions within units along the lines of gender were created when male commanders warned the junior men to “stay away
from the women” and were exacerbated on ships by segregated
berthing, which separated women from the rest of their coworkers,
who berthed together. Although gender was mentioned as a cohesion issue, it was rarely mentioned alone and usually as only a part of
a larger problem.
Table 4.1 presents questionnaire responses to an item asking soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines about unit cohesion. Their assessments varied significantly by grade and unit, but not by gender,
race, or service. Roughly half of the respondents described their
units as loosely cohesive. Officers and noncommissioned officers
Table 4.1
Responses to the Question: “How Would You Describe the Cohesiveness of
Your Unit?” (by grade, in percent)
We are a very cohesive group.
We are a loosely cohesive group.
We are divided into conflicting groups.
Officers
(N=115)
E7–E9
(N=104)
E5–E6
(N=255)
E1–E4
(N=419)
37
56
7
34
53
14
22
48
31
26
48
27
NOTES: For grade, p < 0.001. Unit was also significant (p < 0.001); however, there was
no apparent pattern by size, gender ratio, or type of unit. Service, gender, and race
were not significant. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.
56
New Opportunities for Women
(NCOs) in grades E7–E9 were more likely than the lower grades to
think their units were very cohesive; the enlisted grades from E1–E6
were much more likely than more senior personnel to believe that
their units were divided into conflicting groups. Men and women
perceived cohesion similarly; their opinions did not vary significantly.
It is important to note that the units surveyed were operationally unemployed at the time of this study. This relative inactivity may have
negatively affected the perceived cohesion within the units.
Open-Ended Cohesion Survey Results
The questionnaire also asked respondents what they thought contributed to the current state of cohesion in their units; their written
comments were coded and are characterized in Table 4.2. Unlike the
written comments offered in response to queries on readiness, which
tended to focus overwhelmingly on a single factor, the comments for
cohesion reflected a far broader range of issues, and no singular element could be identified as primary.
Specific Issues Related to Cohesion
In addition to the more-general questions, the questionnaire asked
about specific elements related to cohesion. Table 4.3 presents the
responses people gave as to whether they and their coworkers
worked well together. As with the question that asked people to rate
the level of cohesion in their units, grade was significant, and officers
were most positive in their responses: Nearly 60 percent of officers
agreed that all worked well together, while 45 to 55 percent of their
fellow service members agreed.
Only 42.9 percent of military personnel surveyed agreed with the
statement, “I believe that my coworkers and I would respond well to
a crisis.” Service, unit, grade, race, and gender were not significant in
this item.1
______________
1 This refers only to the cohesion of the work group and the ability of coworkers to
work well together. The survey included separate questions about unit readiness,
which are shown in Chapter Two.
Effects of Gender Integration on Cohesion
57
Table 4.2
Written Comments in Response to “Why Do You Think Your Unit’s
Cohesion Is the Way It Is?”
Categories
Number of
Mentions
Written Responses
Qualities of people
Organization of unit
Leadership
Working/training together; accomplishing missions/goals
Trust/friendship/respect
Different personal interests/values/
personalities
Cliques
Morale/attitude
Quality of people
Gender issues
Racial issues
137
43
27
14
10
5
Division by work department/
platoon
Size of Unit
100
23
Leadership
Communication
Management/mismanagement
Discipline
Recognition/rewards
60
19
5
4
1
Teamwork
Tradition/pride
Operations tempo/long hours
Work/Task cohesion
Personnel tempo
Training
Work hard
42
18
12
10
8
5
4
Stand up for/respect/depend on
one another
Relationship outside work hours
39
33
Table 4.3
Responses to the Statement: “I Believe My Coworkers and I Work
Well Together” (by grade, in percent)
Did not agree
Agreed
Officers
(N=119)
E7–E9
(N=108)
E5–E6
(N=266)
E1–E4
(N=441)
40
60
55
45
46
55
53
47
NOTES: For grade, p < 0.05. Service, unit, race, and gender were not significant.
Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.
58
New Opportunities for Women
Important to the cohesion of any group is whether its members are
able to communicate well. While officers surveyed were more likely
than other individuals to believe they communicated well with
coworkers, the majority of respondents of all grades did not believe
so. Table 4.4 indicates these results.
Finally, responses to the questionnaire item “I believe I can trust and
depend on my coworkers,” varied significantly by grade (p < 0.001),
race (p < 0.001), sex (p < 0.05), and unit (p < 0.05). Service was not
significant. In terms of grade, over half of the officers and enlisted
personnel in grades E7–E9 believed that they could trust and depend
on their coworkers (56.3 and 54.6 percent, respectively), compared to
less than a third of enlisted personnel in grades E5–E6 and E1–E4
(27.1 and 30.2 percent). More men in our survey than women felt
they could trust and count on their coworkers, at a rate of 38.7 percent compared to 26.3 percent. Whites were more likely than other
races to report that they could trust and depend on coworkers (41.6
percent), followed by Hispanics (32.2 percent), and then Blacks (24.0
percent) and people of other races (22.4 percent). Unit was significant, although no pattern was apparent, and this may be due to
command climate.
The perceptions of the military personnel we surveyed generally reiterate the findings of prior research. When people thought they performed well as a unit, they rated cohesion as high or medium.
Medium raters did not necessarily see their situation as problematic.
When social cohesion was low, but coupled with medium or high
task cohesion, overall cohesion was rated medium. Only when both
social and task cohesion were low did people rate overall cohesion as
Table 4.4
Responses to the Statement: “I Believe that My Coworkers and I
Communicate Well” (by grade, in percent)
Did not agree
Agreed
Officers
(N=119)
E7–E9
(N=108)
E5–E6
(N=266)
E1–E4
(N=441)
52
48
62
38
68
32
71
29
NOTES: For grade, p < 0.01. Service, unit, race, and gender were not significant.
Effects of Gender Integration on Cohesion
59
low. The negative effects of too much social bonding were mentioned as well. In discussions over the loss of all-male bonding environments, even those who longed for the “good old days” of high social cohesion admitted that some now-abandoned types of social
bonding between men were actually unprofessional and detracted
from the work environment. Our questionnaire items did not distinguish between the types of cohesion, but the written comments spell
out the differences indicated by many personnel.
RESPONDENTS’ EXPLANATIONS BEHIND HIGH, MEDIUM,
OR LOW UNIT COHESION
This section depicts unit work environments according to whether
they were perceived as very cohesive, loosely cohesive, or divided
into conflicting groups. As noted earlier, only the last category was
considered a problem that might seriously jeopardize morale, readiness, or performance.
Very Cohesive Units
Where unit cohesion was reported high, people used their own
words to communicate in academic terms that both task cohesion
and social cohesion were high. Task cohesion was described by one
person as, “[t]he professionalism and hard work of everyone on
board: we work together to make things happen regardless of personal feelings.” These people felt good about their accomplishments
and supported one another in their efforts. They claimed “pride in
our work and we’re not afraid of putting in a little extra effort to help
out a shipmate.” Social cohesion was high when people felt “we are
more of a family than a group of ordinary people.” The leadership
was seen as promoting cohesion by its management style: “Trust
and communication—letting people do their jobs and have responsibility (not micro-manage).” This level of closeness, trust, and cooperation was linked to performance under stressful conditions:
“People know each other and they tend to help out. We tend to stick
together in a crisis.” This type of environment was more easily
achieved in smaller units or departments, as some people noted on
their surveys. Not once did any respondent write that common gender, religion, race, ethnicity, or background was responsible for his or
her unit’s high level of cohesion. Although responses did vary signif-
60
New Opportunities for Women
icantly by unit, there was no indication that mostly white male units,
for example, rated their units any higher in cohesion level than did
units with a much more diverse population. The comments on the
importance of the role in leadership in fostering cohesion suggest
that unit variation might be due to leader attitudes and practices.
Ultimately, time together in a positive, productive environment appears to override differences in social attributes: “We have worked
closely together for 6 months out to sea. We have been through the
good times and hard times and have had to depend upon each
other.”
Loosely Cohesive Units
People who thought of their units as loosely cohesive often actually
preferred this level of cohesion: “There are individual interests but
everyone works well together and is driving towards a common
goal.” That task cohesion was strong and took precedence over social cohesion was expressed in a number of different ways:
People have different agendas but in a crisis situation, I believe we
would work well together.
We all have our own thing going but when we need to get together
for a goal the ship works together well.
When an actual casualty occurs everyone joins for the common
good.
When it’s on the line we get the job done.
When it’s time to pull together, all [work] to make the tasking complete.
Although we don’t get along we are all ready to fight.
Although some people accepted loose social cohesion as the natural
outcome of a work group comprising many different types of backgrounds and interests, others defined loose social cohesion as the result of people making transitions from the civilian social world into
the military environment: “We are all raised in different environments and making change is hard for some people to do.”
Effects of Gender Integration on Cohesion
61
That people do not want to socialize together outside of work or in
their free time does not necessarily mean that they do not get along,
especially when people are forced to work long hours together:
“When in homeport, everyone wants to spend time with family and
friends on off hours, due to amount of time of deployment and 14month turnaround.”
Finally, even when there appeared to be a level of social conflict that
divided people into groups or even scattered them individually,
people made comments suggesting that the right situation or proper
incentives could cause them to act as one:
Most members who are career minded have a look-out-for-themselves mindset. Everybody else just does their time. There’s no
good reason to function as a unit if there is no central purpose to
function together, such as a crisis. It doesn’t put more money in
your pocket.
Thus the common sentiment among military personnel in loosely
cohesive units paralleled the literature on cohesion in asserting that
high social cohesion was not necessary to achieve task cohesion or
reach group goals.
Units Divided into Conflicting Groups
Units divided into conflicting groups experienced the divisions either
at an organizational level along the lines of platoons or work groups,
or based on individual statuses, such as grade, race, or gender. People whose unit cohesion appeared to be low were most likely to
mention gender as an issue, although gender was only one of several
characteristics that separated people—and was often not the primary
rift. Moreover, gender separations were often attributed to or
thought to have been reinforced by structural components or leadership practices. Unlike the more contented members of loosely cohesive units, people in units where it was apparent that both social
and task cohesion were low described lower morale and performance.
It is apparent from what service members wrote on their questionnaires that they want cohesion at the smaller work group level
62
New Opportunities for Women
(primary group), as well as a sense of esprit de corps at a larger unit
level (secondary group).
We will first address the comments about lack of cohesion at the
larger level that was due to unproductive competition with other
groups and/or a lack of a sense of belonging to a greater entity with a
larger purpose. In some places, cohesion at the larger level did not
exist because of a lack of communication or coordination:
“Sometimes it seems that different departments are on different
teams, not the same mission.” A few people noted that connecting is
particularly challenging when the larger group is extremely large. On
“a large vessel with many varying jobs and many missions,” it may
seem that, “[e]veryone has a piece of a pie but no one person has the
entire pie.” Other comments attributed the divisions to leadership,
not unit size: “There’s no teamwork or team building, just command
generated reasons to hate other departments or divisions.” Working
with an organization founded on a division of labor, supervisors can
either emphasize how all the roles fit together into one, or they treat
departments as separate and competitive: “This command is very
cliquish. People are always compared to others, i.e., engineer vs.
topsider.” While fostering competition may increase morale and cohesion for those units that are considered “the best,” it may leave
members of other units feeling underappreciated and unentitled to
take pride in larger unit successes. The chain of command may also
build walls between subsections of the larger unit when each commander has different standards and policies for his or her section: “I
think there are inconsistencies in the standards set by the different
departments and on this ship. That makes it difficult for the departments to fuse together at the deck plate level.”
Some of the lack of cohesion among subsections was placed in the
context of current shortages: “When resources are limited
(manpower, time, materials) you tend to protect your resources, not
help others.” At least one unit actually bonded to protect itself from
other units: “We stick together so we don’t get overrun by others.”
There were no comments suggesting that units were divided and
competed along the lines of whether they were staffed mostly by
women or by men. There was also no indication that male or female
commanders dealt with this issue any differently from one another.
Effects of Gender Integration on Cohesion
63
At the smaller work group level, less cohesion was reported when
individuals fell into cliques or believed that they were on their own,
“In my division, it’s every person for themselves. Not a lot of teamwork.” These delineations may not always be visible, but may resurface whenever a disagreement takes place:
People tend to want to be around others who are like them: same
color, sex, rank, whatever. This creates barriers and draws lines.
Because a gap, however small, is already there it makes it easy for
the rest to become huge when a conflict does occur. People take
sides and the gaps deepen.
The issue of cliques is not limited to social cohesion and can be tied
to work conditions and rewards: “Too much favoritism and politicking. If you’re not in the clique you don’t receive the adequate
recognition for your job.”
The biggest gap reported among subgroups was the one between the
junior enlisted personnel and the officers and senior enlisted personnel who lead them. The military organizes housing according to
grade, and experienced people receive more amenities than the juniors. These differences are not the ones respondents reported in
explaining how rank divides people. Rather, there seemed to be
grade differences in understanding the unit’s goals and how to get
there: “Officers refuse to listen to the experienced enlisted for solutions to problems.” There was also a generation gap in perceptions
of how the services should be run and how junior people should be
treated: “personality conflicts [between] older workers used to old
ways and new ones who are used to today’s ways.”
Leaders create resentment between men and women by holding
them to different standards or giving them assignments or recognition based on gender. This issue will be discussed in detail in the
following chapter on morale. In some of the units in which women
were recently integrated for the first time, men and women had to
overcome a hurdle set by preintegration indoctrination. Many men
had been told not to talk to the women, sit next to them, or even go
near them, or they would be asking for disciplinary action. These instructions, intended to keep men from sexually harassing women,
made life very difficult in work groups that included both men and
women who were expected to communicate and coordinate their
64
New Opportunities for Women
efforts. This environment also made it difficult for women to have
male friends, because rumors about their relationship would often
suggest that they were romantically involved, and the men might
even be counseled to curtail their interactions. Women officers in
particular found this restriction difficult: They couldn’t socialize
with male peers without causing speculation about their intentions,
and they often did not have much of an opportunity to coordinate
time to socialize with other women officers (assuming they would
have common interests and would wish to do so). These issues also
had an effect on morale and will be discussed further in the next
chapter.
From the focus groups, we learned that segregated berthing lessened
work group cohesion on recently integrated ships because department heads were generally accustomed to having their entire crew
berthed together in the same area of the ship. Both official and unofficial information used to be communicated in berthing areas,
either verbally or by posting notices, and often one worker would
wake his replacement to take over the shift. Now men are still
berthed according to unit, but the women are berthed together
regardless of work group. Supervisors often did not think to go to
women’s berthing in addition to their men’s berthing to pass along
important information, and no male coworker dared go into female
berthing to wake a female sailor if she were the one that happened to
oversleep that day.
Although women’s berthing was often seen as a location of conflict,
this behavior was not due to women being disproportionately difficult, but was often due to women having different and conflicting
work schedules since they were pieced together from different units.
Also, it was often unclear who should be responsible for resolving
female berthing-area conflicts and making sure these berthing areas
were clean. Generally, the unit leaders took care of their unit’s
berthing area, but for women’s berthing there is no standard Navy
policy on who should be held accountable. Thus, women did not
necessarily bond simply because they were all women and were
housed together, and conflict among them could affirm the perception that “women just can’t get along.”
Discussions of gender integration of military units often raise the issue of whether the presence of women disrupts male bonding. Some
Effects of Gender Integration on Cohesion
65
men did complain that they could no longer walk around half-naked
on ship, swear and drink with the guys, go as a unit to a strip club
with their leaders, or engage in hazing practices. Usually, other men
in the focus group would point out (and then they might often agree)
that these activities do not belong in today’s professional military
and that showing up drunk for work or beating each other up was not
best for work performance or readiness. On ships, we heard stories
of men who used to be quite malodorous due to infrequent bathing;
now their male peers appreciate that such men seem to take better
care of their hygiene when working in the presence of women.
Overall, usually more men than not thought that raising the standards for discipline and behavior was a positive effect of gender integration.
People mentioned that dating between military personnel disrupted
unit cohesion when they placed their relationship above all else and
did not interact with their coworkers or focus on their job. In one location, a pair of junior peers had been counseled to end their relationship; when they did not, one of them was transferred elsewhere.
Perhaps more of an issue is when relationships end on less-thanfavorable terms, yet these people must continue to interact in their
work environment and help each other out if the job calls for it. The
problem of couples is usually found with junior enlisted, although
complaints of fraternization between NCOs and junior people were
also heard. The latter situation caused divisiveness when people
perceived favoritism or inconsistent standards on the part of the
chain of command. Such inappropriate relationships are against
policy in all of the services, and virtually all of the stories about such
relationships ended with one or both of the violators being disciplined or removed from the unit.2
Finally, we explored the issue of whether men might attempt to protect the women in their units rather than perform their duties during
combat. Most people tended to think this would be more likely to
occur in the case of couples, that men in general would not take
special care to protect the women, but that a boyfriend might be
concerned about his girlfriend and that she too might be upset at the
______________
2 Policies regarding fraternization and interpersonal relationships vary between ser-
vices and continue to evolve.
66
New Opportunities for Women
thought of losing her mate. When we asked people to think about
dangerous situations to which they have had to respond in real life
(fires on ships, fires in the field training environment, or dangerous
situations during peacekeeping operations or on the flight decks of
aircraft carriers), virtually all of them stated that no one paid attention to gender when taking action. Men and women alike pitched in
to deal with the situation, and men did not ask where the women
were, tell them to get out of the way, or take over their role in managing the crisis in order to protect them.
PREFERENCES ABOUT THE MIX OF MEN AND WOMEN IN
THE WORK GROUP
The majority of individuals, both men and women, did not have a
preference about the gender of their colleagues. There were significant service differences (p < 0.001), so the responses are presented by
service in Table 4.5. Of those who did state a preference, the majority
(again both men and women) preferred to work with men. This
finding for the women we surveyed is not surprising, as these women
have self-selected to work in a male-dominated profession.
CONCLUSION
Overall, perceptions about cohesion among survey respondents
tended to vary by rank more than anything else. Higher ranking men
and women were more likely to report higher rates of cohesion than
junior personnel. Junior personnel often gave leadership practices
and guidance as an explanation for cohesion level. Workers who described their units as very cohesive or loosely cohesive appeared to
be personally satisfied with their situations and to believe that their
units were able to meet their goals in terms of work requirements.
Any divisions that may be caused by gender were minimized or invisible in those units. Gender was an issue only in units characterized
as divided into conflicting groups, and then it took second place to
divisions along the lines of work groups or, within work groups, along
the lines of rank. When gender did have a negative effect on cohesion, it was because (1) this is one of several ways people break into
categories socially when conflict arises; (2) structures or organizational behavior pointed out gender differences; and (3) dating could
interfere with work if it occurred within a unit. Where people men-
Effects of Gender Integration on Cohesion
67
tioned a positive effect of gender integration on cohesion, it was to
comment that women’s presence had raised the professional standards of conduct in the military workplace.
Table 4.5
Answers to the Question: “Does the Proportion of Women to Men at Work
Matter to You?” (by service and grade, in percent)
Service
Army
Navy
Marine Corps
Answer
Officers
E7–E9
E5–E6
E1–E4
No, it doesn’t matter.
Yes, I prefer to work
mostly with men.
Yes, I prefer to work
where the ratio of men
to women is about the
same.
Yes, I prefer to work
mostly with women.
72
68
59
68
28
23
33
19
—
9
7
12
—
—
2
2
76
67
64
60
15
27
28
20
6
6
8
19
No, it doesn’t matter.
Yes, I prefer to work
mostly with men.
Yes, I prefer to work
where the ratio of men
to women is about the
same.
Yes, I prefer to work
mostly with women.
No, it doesn’t matter.
Yes, I prefer to work
mostly with men.
Yes, I prefer to work
where the ratio of men
to women is about the
same.
Yes, I prefer to work
mostly with women.
3
—
—
0.4
50
82
74
67
50
9
24
23
—
9
—
9
—
—
2
1
NOTES: Unit and grade were significant, p < 0.05, but there was no discernible pattern
to the unit significance. Gender and race were not significant.
Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.